In 2013 the then Prime Minister David Cameron agreed to hold a referendum before 2017 on whether or not Britain should remain a part of the European Union  – a move which could have enormous ramifications on the future direction of the country.  This agreement was made not because it was part of the political manifesto of the Conservative Party, nor because it was what the population wanted; it was an agreement made for the sake of keeping power.  This was an attempt by David Cameron to ensure support for his government from his own MPs!  A small group of MPs (the Backbench Business Committee) comprised a clique of 8 MPs whose ambition was to hold a referendum on leaving Europe.  This was not on the government agenda, and the Prime Minister was not in favour, yet 81 Conservative MPs rebelled and voted in favour.

Because the government was a coalition between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, the Prime Minister was not in a comfortable position, and could not afford to ‘lose’ a great number of MPs for important votes – this would risk him being unable to deliver the agenda he wanted: thus the offer of a future referendum was made in order to secure continued support. This is not an insignificant event, this effectively represents a prioritisation of values: the need to continue in government with full support, over and above the need to follow the democratic process.  It represents the setting of policy in order to appease a minority group, and shows a disregard for the majority view.  It cannot therefore be accepted as democratic.  For the 2015 General Election which followed, this referendum effectively became part of the Conservative Party manifesto – and when the Conservatives were voted into government it then became policy.

In 2016 the referendum itself was called – and MPs on all sides of the House were permitted free reign to campaign for either the Leave or the Remain side of the debate.  A key figure in this debate was the Conservative MP Boris Johnson was believed to be in favour of the EU throughout his political career.  Boris Johnson hummed and hawed over which side to join, before finally opting for the ‘Leave’ side – a decision seen by many as a purely political move.  Criticised by his friend and colleague David Cameron, he was accused of using the referendum to further his personal ambition of becoming Prime Minister, the argument being that a ‘Leave’ vote would allow Johnson to step in as the ‘Leader of the Leave vote’ if Cameron resigned, and a ‘Remain’ vote leaving him well supported by the Eurosceptic Conservative MP for the next leadership contest after Cameron later resigned – a sort of political win-win.  Boris Johnson then became one of the leading figureheads  of the Leave campaign, and as such, was instrumental in its success.  Just as David Cameron 3 years earlier had prioritised the views of a minority, Boris was now doing the same: electing to represent himself and his own ambitions rather than represent the electorate.  The EU referendum may well have been a free debate, and as such all MPs operate according to their personal principles rather than stand behind a common manifesto; yet this situation directly concerned the long-term fate of the whole of the UK population, and the population for generations to come; as such the use of it as political toy in a bid to become Prime Minister equates to game-playing.

Following the vote to ‘Leave’, the resignation of David Cameron and the rejection of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister by his colleagues, Theresa May then became Prime Minster and promptly announced that she would not seek a ‘personal’ mandate by calling a general election; the reasons given for this were varied and included assertions that Britain needed a period of stability, and that calling an election would remove valuable time from the agreed 2-Year negotiating period following the triggering of Article 50.  This stance was maintained for 6 months, until in April 2017, stating that she sought to ensure “…stability for the years ahead…”, Theresa May called for a snap-election.  This was at a time when (coincidentally) the Conservative Party had a 20% lead in the opinion polls!  It should be remembered that this followed the triggering of Article 50, so not only was this ‘search for stability’ a contrary position to the earlier statements, but it also represented a loss of negotiating time with the EU, something which hitherto had also been important.  As was the case for Boris Johnson, Theresa May turned what appeared to be a no-lose situation into defeat, and following the election she remains Prime Minister, but she has lost the small majority that she had previously and is now reliant upon the support of the dogmatic Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland to remain in government.

3 times in the last 5 years, the direction of the United Kingdom has been heavily influenced by game-playing politicians; not politician’s pursuing the course for which they were elected, or for pursuing a course dictated by their principles and creed, but politicians seeking their own personal ambition… politicians who wanted to be Prime Minister.  The implications of these games is beyond grave, these games have a bearing upon the future of the people of Britain (and Europe) both now and for generations to come.   Being Prime Minister should not be an end, it should be a means to an end – and any political system which tolerates that the position of Prime Minister be seen as an end in itself is one which does not consider the will of the people as its highest power.

For the sake of 5 minutes of glory, these people have shown themselves prepared to do (sacrifice?) anything to pursue their own ambitions – is this what we call democracy?  Is this the system of leadership that we want?